Fragments and nanodiscs: beware nonspecific binding

Membrane proteins make up roughly a quarter of human proteins, including many important drug targets. Biophysical methods for fragment screening typically require pure, isolated proteins, and removing membrane proteins from their native environment is not always possible. One solution has been to create nanodiscs which, as we described previously, are isolated little membranes containing the protein of interest. These nanodiscs can be immobilized to the sensor chips used for surface plasmon resonance (SPR), one of the most popular fragment finding methods. But in a recent open-access Chem. Biol. Drug Des. paper, Marcellus Ubbink and collaborators at Leiden University and ZoBio show that the precise composition of the nanodiscs can have a profound effect on the results.

 

The researchers chose cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) as a model membrane protein. This enzyme metabolizes a large fraction of drugs and has a capacious active site able to bind a wide variety of substrates. Four different lipids were chosen for the nanodisc, all of which contained phosphatidylcholine headgroups and differing hydrophobic tails: POPC, DPPC, DMPC, and DPhPC.

 

Nanodiscs were prepared either with or without CYP3A4 and immobilized to SPR chips. Unlike some membrane proteins, it is possible to isolate and immobilize CYP3A4 in the absence of membranes, though the protein forms physiologically less relevant oligomers.

 

Next, the researchers examined 13 known (non-fragment) CYP3A4 ligands. Unfortunately, most of these bound to the empty nanodiscs, and in some cases more than ten ligands bound to a single empty nanodisc. This nonspecific binding correlated with lipophilicity, with only the three least lipophilic molecules showing no binding to empty nanodiscs. One of these was the antifungal drug fluconazole, with a clogP = 0.4. Happily though SPR studies using either free or nanodisc-bound CYP3A4 yielded dissociation constants of 10-20 µM, consistent with published values.

 

Thus encouraged, the researchers screened a diverse set of 140 fragments at 250 or 500 µM against empty and CYP3A4-loaded nanodiscs using SPR. Just as with the larger molecules, there was a good correlation between cLogP and nonspecific binding to empty nanodiscs. Fragments that bound to one type of nanodisc (POPC, for example) also tended to bind nonspecifically to other types of nanodiscs (DPPC, DMPC, and DPhPC). Fewer fragments bound nonspecifically to DMPC nanodiscs than to the others, suggesting this may be the best lipid to use.

 

Fragment hits were defined as those binding to CYP3A4-containing nanodiscs more than they bound empty nanodiscs (or, for isolated CYP3A4, the unmodified SPR chip). Hit rates varied dramatically, from 9 of 140 fragments tested against CYP3A4 in POPC nanodiscs to 33 of 140 tested against CYP3A4 in DMPC nanodiscs. There were also 33 hits against free CYP3A4, 11 of which were unique. However, all 11 of these are somewhat lipophilic (average cLogP ~2.3) and most also bound significantly to empty nanodiscs. The researchers suggest that these bind “aspecifically” to CYP3A4.

 

A Venn diagram of all the hits shows only two that bind to free CYP3A4 as well as all nanodiscs containing CYP3A4, and the researchers highlight these two as the most promising. Unfortunately these are not further characterized.

 

Near the beginning of the paper, the researchers note that very few fragment screens have been conducted against membrane proteins incorporated into nanodiscs. This analysis suggests why this is so. If you use nanodiscs, make sure to consider different types of ligands. And look carefully for nonspecific binding.

Fragments vs eIF4E: a chemical probe

Cancer cells are known for growing and multiplying quickly, and to do so they need to produce large amounts of protein. The rate determining step in protein translation happens early, when ribosomes are recruited to the 5’-end of mRNA by the eukaryotic initiation factor 4F (eIF4F) complex. This complex has long been a target for drug discovery, and in a recent open-access Nat. Comm. paper Paul Clarke, Andrew Woodhead, Caroline Richardson, and collaborators at Institute of Cancer Research and Astex describe a chemical probe. (Andrew spoke about this program last year at FBLD 2024.)

 

The eIF4F complex includes three core proteins, confusingly named eIF4E, eIF4G, and eIF4A. eIF4E binds to the 5’cap of mRNA and recruits eIF4G. Blocking the interaction of eIF4E either with mRNA or eIF4G could in principle shut down protein synthesis, but intensive efforts by multiple groups have struggled: the mRNA binding site is very polar, and disrupting protein-protein interactions is tough. Thus, the researchers took a fragment approach.

 

Developing a form of eIF4E suitable for fragment screening was itself a challenge because the protein mostly exists as part of a complex in cells and the native monomer is unstable. After making more than two dozen different constructs, the researchers developed a stable, soluble form that could be crystallized. This construct was screened against a library of 1371 fragments in pools of four, each at 500 µM, using CPMG NMR followed by crystallography, leading to 50 hits. A few bound at the mRNA cap-binding site but most bound to a previously unreported “site 2,” which is near where eIF4G binds.

 

One of these, compound 1, has a reasonable ligand efficiency despite its low affinity as assessed by ITC. The phenol appeared to be making no interactions and so was removed. Adding a fluorine usefully enforced the twisted biaryl conformation and filled a small dimple; fragment growing then led to mid micromolar compound 3. Further growing to pick up additional lipophilic and polar contacts eventually led to compound 4, with low nanomolar affinity. Understanding the importance of negative controls for chemical probes, the researchers also switched the stereochemistry at the benzylic carbon to produce compound 5, which has >30-fold lower affinity for eIF4E. 

 

Crystallography revealed that binding of compound 4 to eIF4E causes conformational changes that should impair binding of the protein to eIF4G. Experiments in cell lysates bore out this hypothesis. Moreover, compound 4 also inhibited protein translation in cell lysates at low micromolar concentrations, while compound 5 did not.

 

Unfortunately, these observations did not extend to intact cells. A cellular thermal shift assay (CETSA) demonstrated that compound 4 did stabilize eIF4E in cells with an EC₅₀ = 2 µM, consistent with binding. But it was much less effective at blocking the interaction with eIF4G in cells, even at high concentrations, and showed no inhibition of protein translation.

 

To understand why, the researchers conducted a series of targeted protein degradation and genetic rescue experiments that are beyond the scope of this blog post. The upshot is that eIF4G binds to several regions of eIF4E, and that while compound 4 disrupts binding to the “non-canonical binding site”, it does not block binding to the “canonical binding site,” and thereby does not block overall complex formation. Why there should be a difference between intact cells and cell lysates is not obvious to me, but perhaps the more dilute conditions of cell lysates play a role, as seen for a paper we discussed last year.

 

One interesting feature of this story is that the initial fragment makes no polar interactions with the protein; all of the polar interactions in compound 4 were added during optimization. This is quite the opposite of ASTX660, where all the polar interactions in the final clinical compound came from the initial fragment. Indeed, a 2021 analysis of fragment to lead successes found that fewer than one in ten retained no polar interaction from the initial fragment.

 

This paper also illustrates the gap that can occur between research and publication; a couple of the authors listed as affiliated with Astex left in 2017. But better late than never, and this study nicely integrates fragment-based lead discovery with elegant biology. Compound 4 should be a useful tool for further exploring the nuances of eIF4E.

Crude success against the SARS-CoV-2 main protease: From covalent fragment to noncovalent lead

With increased throughput and reliability of biophysical and other methods, finding fragments against most targets is now fast and easy. Advancing these fragments to leads, not so much. In a new open-access Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. paper, Jacob Bush and collaborators at GSK, University of Strathclyde, and the Francis Crick Institute provide a case study for how to accelerate the process.

 

Almost exactly five years ago we highlighted early efforts against the main protease (M^pro) from SARS-CoV-2. This target turned out to be a good choice, as demonstrated by the rapid discovery and approval of the drug nirmatrelvir. M^pro is a cysteine protease and thus ideally suited for covalent fragment screening.

 

In the new paper, the researchers screened a library of 219 chloroacetamide-containing fragments (each at 5 µM) individually against 0.5 µM protein for 16 hours at 4 ºC and then analyzed them by intact protein mass spectrometry. Six of these gave at least 75% modification, and further characterization found that the most potent, compound 2, had a k_inact/K_I = 170 M^-1s^-1. This (and the other hits) also inhibited the protein in an enzymatic assay, and additional chemoproteomic experiments revealed that compound 2 could bind to the active site cysteine of M^pro in living cells with surprising selectivity; just 11 targets were more strongly engaged than M^pro.

 

To optimize compound 2, the researchers turned to crude reaction screening, also known as direct-to-biology or D2B. As we described here and here, this entails running reactions at small scale and testing them directly, without purification. To validate the approach, the researchers synthesized a subset of the original 219 chloroacetamides in 384-well plates. HPLC studies confirmed the desired product as the major component for 43 of the 69 attempted syntheses; only four failed. Importantly, there was a good correlation in activity between the crude reaction mixtures and the pure molecules.

 

Next, the researchers synthesized a new D2B library of 193 molecules related to compound 2. HPLC analysis of the crude products showed a 77% success rate, with just nine outright failures. The library was screened against M^pro for 1 hour (as opposed to 16 hours in the first screen), resulting in 14 hits. The best of these, compound 7a, was such a rapid modifier that the a k_inact/K_I could not be easily calculated, but it showed nanomolar activity in the enzymatic assay. It was also more selective than compound 2 in cell-based experiments.

 

Chloroacetamides are not considered advanceable as drugs, so the researchers sought to remove the warhead, initially by replacing it with the simple acetamide in compound 12. Although this molecule showed almost no activity in the enzymatic assay, the researchers coupled a diverse set of 146 carboxylic acids to the amine building block and screened the crude reaction mixtures in a functional assay at 50 µM to identify seven molecules that gave nearly complete inhibition, with compound 13 being the most potent. A second D2B library of analogs around compound 13 was screened at 1 µM, leading to the mid-nanomolar compound 14.

 

This is a nice illustration of the power of crude reaction screening to rapidly identify new chemical matter. It is true that M^pro is quite ligandable; we wrote about other non-covalent fragment success stories here and here. However, as we discussed here, D2B can be applied to more challenging targets. The supporting information in the new paper should be particularly valuable for those hoping to try the approach themselves.

 

At FBLD 2024 Frank von Delft set a goal of taking a “100 µM binder to a 10 nM lead in less than a week for less than £1000.” We’re not there yet, but developments in D2B are moving us forward.

Fishing for pearls more efficiently with a new NMR method

NMR is the most venerable approach for finding fragments, and ligand-detected NMR is still among the more popular methods. But the amount of protein required for a full fragment library screen can be a limitation, particularly for more challenging targets. A new paper in Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. by Alvar Gossert and collaborators at ETH Zürich, Bruker, and Karlsruhe Institute of Technology provides a new, less protein-intensive approach.

 

I’ll preface the next paragraph by admitting that not only am I no spectroscopist, I don’t even play one on TV. So, spectroscopy-savvy readers, please feel free to provide more details in the comments, especially if I get something wrong. For fellow non-spectroscopists, the takeaway is that clever NMR tricks increase sensitivity.

 

PEARLScreen, short for Perfect Echo for Advanced Relaxation-based Ligand Screen, is related to the classic Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill (CPMG, or T_1ρ) method, which we wrote about most recently here. As in that older method, PEARLScreen relies on the decrease in signal intensity of a ligand that binds to a protein. This is due to slower tumbling of the bound ligand, resulting in faster relaxation of excited protons (see here). Lengthening the time between excitation and measurement should in theory boost contrast between bound and free ligands, but various technical challenges impede this in practice. PEARLScreen overcomes these challenges using “a perfect echo pulse train with water suppression by excitation sculpting.” In addition to lengthening the relaxation delay, PEARLScreen also allows exchange broadening to occur between the ligand and protein, further increasing sensitivity.

 

The researchers simulated multiple conditions to optimize various parameters, and then experimentally tested PEARLScreen on four different proteins with three types of NMR instruments, starting with a standard high-end 600 MHz.

 

The first protein-ligand pair was trypsin binding to a known benzamidine fragment. This interaction was detectable using a standard T_1ρ experiment with 200 µM ligand and 20 µM protein. Using PEARLScreen, the researchers could reduce the protein concentration to 1 µM while maintaining similar signal to noise .

 

Next, they screened 94 fragments in pools of 8 against three different proteins: PPAT, Abl, and FKBP. In all cases PEARLScreen was more sensitive than T_1ρ, allowing screening at 2.5 µM rather than 20 µM protein. PEARLScreen was also more sensitive than the two other most common ligand-detected NMR methods, STD and WaterLOGSY.

 

We wrote recently about benchtop NMR, and the researchers found that PEARLScreen was also more sensitive than a T_1ρ experiment on an 80 MHz instrument, though the difference was not as dramatic as on the 600 MHz machine. On the other hand, on a 1.2 GHz instrument PEARLScreen was so sensitive that the researchers could screen mixtures of 16 fragments with just 1 µM protein.

 

This is a neat paper, which confidently concludes that “due to the superior sensitivity of the PEARLScreen compared to all established screening experiments at standard fields, we expect it to become the standard experiment for ¹H-detected ligand screening.” We look forward to hearing how it performs for others.